Peter Jones writes:

> > > It was never conscious, and if anyonw concludede it was on
> > > the first run, they were mistaken. The TT is a rule-of-thumb for
> > > detecting,
> > > it does not magically endow consciousness.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that of two very similar programs, one containing a true 
> > random
> > number generator and the other a pseudorandom number generator, only the 
> > former
> > could possibly be conscious?
> Do you think someone would judge a system to be conscious in a TT
> if it gave predictable responses ?
> How accurate is the TT as a guide ?
> What else is there ?

The fact that people feel they are not responding to inputs in a deterministic 
way does 
not necessarily mean that it is true. You could put a computer program through 
a TT and 
be completely surprised by its quirky and imaginative responses - then run the 
program a 
second time with the same inputs and get exactly the same responses. There are 
who argue that human cognition is fundamentally different from classical 
computers due 
to quantum randomness, but even if this is the case there is no reason to 
believe that it 
is necessarily the case. Brains would have evolved to give rise to appropriate 
enhancing behaviour, which precludes random or erratic behaviour. A degree of 
unpredictability would have to be present in order to avoid predators or catch 
prey, but 
unpredictable does not necessarily mean random: it just has to be beyond the 
of the predators or prey to predict. The unpredictability could result from the 
effect of 
classical chaos, or simply from the complexity of the behaviour which is in 
fact perfectly 
deterministic. No true randomness is needed.

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to